PC Victim William Bennett

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


Oooh! Oooh! Let's see! Seeing as I'm stating that it's pretty much unquantifiable, what do you think?

Read the ****ing thread, you chimp. Did you check your brains in at the front desk when you chose to become Mini-Me to Mr "I've Got A Really Big House, Puny Mortals"?

Oh oh, caught once again in the act of stating "faith based belief" as "fact", you resort to calling names- are you sure you're old enough to vote? Sounds rather childish to me...........

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Epublius Rex
Where are your tables for this- they do not need to be on the internet. I would just like to see them. I find it odd, in a way, to say the least- given that the nation was up in arms over the "St. Valentines Day Massacre". Said event being a drop in the bucket compared to a day's worth of drive bys in LA.

I'm not Berz, but .

http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/?article=miron.prohibition.alcohol

The evidence on Prohibition and crime focuses on the homicide rate, since this is the only type of crime for which data are reported consistently both before, during, and after Prohibition.10 Figure 3 presents the homicide rate in the United States (measured as homicides per 100,000 population) for the period 1900-1995. Starting from around 1906, the homicide rate rises steadily through 1933-1934, when it begins a general decline until approximately 1960, interrupted by a spike during World War II. Beginning in the early 1960's the homicide rate rises steadily until the early 1970's—to a level slightly above the previous peak in 1933-1934—and then fluctuates around a relatively high value for the remainder of the sample.

Oh, and this also has the effect of showing that during the Depression the crime rate spiked and was extremely high... especially comparing it to right after WW2.

[Dinner]

This thread is sad and makes the baby Jesus cry.

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I'm not Berz, but .




Oh, and this also has the effect of showing that during the Depression the crime rate spiked and was extremely high... especially comparing it to right after WW2.

Thanks for the graph. Look at the line- it drops way off from the 1920's and the 1930-35 spike was the era of dillenger and company. Those people were an anomaly that ended when the FBI gunned them down. Ma barker and her gang took one of my Dad's friends and classmates and held him for ransom- Billy Hamm. The Hamms were friends of my Grandmother's family.

Thanks for the graph though, it proves my earlier point. The Depression didn't begin until 6 months after the crash in October of 1929, using common economic standards of two succeeding quarters with statistics headed downward. Thus, by 1935, in the depths of the depression, crime began dropping. The previous spike was from an influx of immigrants from Eastern Europe and Southern Europe. That was the first instance of crime being traceable (in America) to immigrants. The difference back then was that they were deported without trial. Today, they are allowed to remain after serving their time, more often then not. What's even more interesting about this was the state of medicine at the time- no one would argue that more people died of all medical emergencies back then, let alone gunshot wounds and knife wounds. In my own area, my sister-in-law did her internship at Hennipen General in the ER. Back when they nicknamed Minneapolis "Murderapolis". When a year later they claimed the homicide rate had fallen there, I asked her her take on this. Her reply was that yes, murders were down but gunshot victims were still rising- the difference being that when the crime wave began (black gang bangers from Chicago, Kansas City, Detroit, etc) they were not at all used to dealing with gunshots- as the twincities had no real crime before the influx began, but after a year of being in a warzone type of atmosphere, they had gained significant knowledge and expertise and were now saving most of them. Here in the twin cities, four out of 5 murders are committed by minorities- 7 of ten by blacks, the rest by Asians and Hispanics, though the hispanic figures are rising- and whites are 87% of Minnesota's population.

So, I would want to look at total victims versus just those who died of their wounds- my guess is there would be a significant difference in victims per 100,000 between then and now. But- maybe having booze available in 1933 helped people quell their anger? Just kidding.

[Drake Tungsten]

Actually, it is Reid and the others who should apologize to Bennett. They were condemning and attempting to silence a public intellectual for a reference to a theory. It was not a proposal and not a recommendation -- nothing more than a possible explanation. But the Democrats preferred to pander to an audience that either had heard Bennett's remarks out of context, or merely thought that any time conservatives talk about race, they are being racist. The Democrats' obligation as politicians, as public officials, to see that we all hear the widest and richest diversity of views was suspended in favor of partisan cheap shots. (The spineless White House also refused to defend Bennett.) Because I came of age in the McCarthy era, I have always thought of the Democratic Party as more protective of free speech and unpopular thought than the Republican Party. The GOP was the party of Joe McCarthy, William Jenner and other witch-hunters. Now, though, it is the Democrats who use the pieties of race, ethnicity and gender to stifle debate and smother thought, pretty much what anti-intellectual intellectuals did to Larry Summers, the president of Harvard University, when he had the effrontery to ask some unorthodox questions about gender and mathematical aptitude. He was quickly instructed on how to think.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100301492.html

[Jaguar]

Cohen's a lefty too. It's good to see Cohen not being partisan. I approve.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Epublius Rex


Actually, the term "racist" and by extension, "racism" is a Marxist construct. It was originally used as a means of deflating the white working class and their supposed "oppressors" who they viewed as using racial issues to "divide and conquer".

Actually I could give a rats ass where it originated from the definition today stands as:

Racism refers to beliefs and practices that assume inherent and significant differences exist between the genetics of various groups of human beings; that assume these differences can be measured on a scale of "superior" to "inferior"; and that result in the social, political and economic advantage of one group in relation to others.

I, like you, likewise reject he concept of it being an exclusively pejorative of whites as for example certainly the likes of the certainty of Japanese racial superiority amongst others marks racist attitudes.

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Actually I could give a rats ass where it originated from the definition today stands as:



I, like you, likewise reject he concept of it being an exclusively pejorative of whites as for example certainly the likes of the certainty of Japanese racial superiority amongst others marks racist attitudes.

Well, the Japanese are not alone. Arabs hate blacks as do Mexicans. Cubans hate Mexicans, Hindus hate Muslims and visa versa, Chinese have always looked down on everyone else. The list goes on and on. Frankly, the only people who seem to think it a bad thing are whites and the minorities who use it as a club against whites:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=19672

And I have frankly become quite bored with the whole notion of it. I never cared one bit who was what color when I hired people and likewise refused to hire anyone simply to fill a quota- that's unAmerican. Now, whenever I hear someone accused of it, I yawn. Frankly, in my opinion, the people slinging it around the most nowadays are the racists. And I believe most Americans are coming to see this- especially after 911 and now Katrina.

But you should care where it comes from. The Marxists intended use of it was to deliberately destroy the native cultures of people so they could supplant it with their version of a lala land utopian soviet where everyone was equally miserable and equally deprived- all except for the top 5 to 10% of the party elite, that is.

The fact is, is there is no such thing as equality and the people shouting the loudest for egalitarianism are the ones laughing the hardest at tools like laz and his gimpy self. They know full well that if everything in the world was equally divided amongst all people that within 25 years the top 5% would once again control 80 to 90% of the world. It's the nature of man and anyone who can't accept that is wingnut. All politics is the means of controlling the masses, always has been, always will be.

[Ramo]

Bennett's a bastard, and my gives a **** is broken about his fate in general, but he was correct in this situation. Reid et al. clearly misinterpreted his statements, and they ought to be ashamed.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Epublius Rex
Actually, the term "racist" and by extension, "racism" is a Marxist construct.

You're on drugs, aren't you?

[Ramo]

No drug could **** up a person to that extent.

[Berzerker]

Thx Imran for the graph, its not the exact same one I've posted here in the past but the pattern looks very similar.

Rex - according to the graph, the rate began dropping in '34, about a year after prohibition ended and kept going down until after WWII. The effect of ending prohibition was not immediate since some states stayed dry a while but it is obvious. Black market wars take time to dissipate so there were still plenty of violent gangs around to cause trouble, but a major source of revenue dried up and the gangs lost strength. The Depression didn't have much of anything to do with the homicide rate, the drug war drove the rate up and it came back down to around 5-6 homicides per 100,000 which looks like where it is most of the time we aren't waging a drug war. You cant point to a Depression to explain the repititious nature of the graph.

That graph puts into perspective recent claims about crime dropping. Mueller of the FBI recently acknowledged that drug arrests and convictions have dropped because resources are being diverted to terrorism. Too bad these numbskulls were wasting those resources chasing pot smokers before 9/11.

But you're right about improvements in health care, medics, etc, reducing the homicide rate. Back then more people died, today we can save many from death so the homicide rate during this drug war would be even higher if not for better medical responses to gunshot victims.

Drug wars roughly double homicide rates, but you wont hear the William Bennetts of the country admit that. They're too busy protecting me from the sin of drug use.

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You're on drugs, aren't you?

No, grasshopper who choses the name of a serial rapist, it is a Communist construct. You should try reading Marx, Engles, et al before commenting or assuming knowledge you do not have.

"According to the second edition (1989) of the Oxford English Dictionary, the earliest known usage of the word “racism” in English occurred in a 1936 book by the American “fascist,” Lawrence Dennis, The Coming American Fascism. The second usage of the term in English that the OED records is in the title of a book originally written in German in 1933 and 1934 but translated into English and first published in 1938–Racism by Magnus Hirschfeld, translated by Eden and Cedar Paul. Since Hirschfeld died in 1935, before the publication of Dennis’ book the following year, and had already used the word extensively in the text and title of his own book, it seems only fair to recognize him rather than Dennis as the originator of the word “racism.” In the case of the word “racist” as an adjective, the OED ascribes the first known usage to Hirschfeld himself. Who was Magnus Hirschfeld and what did he have to tell us about “racism”? "

"Hirschfeld describes his own political ideals as “Pan-Humanism,” a version of political, cultural, and racial universalism. The Pauls themselves write, “we think that the readers of Racism will detect a very definite orientation to the Left. . . . [Hirschfeld] was one who fully realized that sexual reform is impossible without a preliminary economic and political revolution.”"

"With one exception, he is unsparing in his denunciations of the ethnocentric loyalties of nations, races, and cultures: “Always and everywhere, except in Soviet Russia, xenophobia, xenophobia, xenophobia.” Later, he informs us, “It may be too early to speak, but perhaps the problem of nationalities and races has already been solved on one-sixth of the land-surface of the globe [i.e., Stalin’s Russia].” "

The left claims Hirschfeld because he speaks to their hearts. He speaks to the core of the Marxist agenda- one world government, ruled over by the Communist intelligentsia. No one is any better then anyone else- except them. No one is allowed to decide who and who they will not associate with and no one is allowed to think any thoughts which are not approved "talking points". All of society is dumbed down so they can thus control those thoughts without having to shout "racist" every time someone notices that we are not all the same.

The whole idea of sameness is a communist construct. If your going to idolize communist gangsters, then at least understand where they are coming from and where they intend to put you and others like you- into long lines waiting for bread and into longer lines waiting for a roof over your head. Mugabe is also a fine Marxist, idolize him, if you want to be really "cool". After all, Che died a cowards death, after getting all of his troops shot up first in Africa, then in South America. They taped him you know, begging for his life. Funny that he should end the way he began- making others beg for their lives.

I also like Darylimple's notion that all PC speak (including "racist") is nothing more then a furtherance of the communist habit of deliberately telling lies and forcing people who know they are lies to state they are the truth. The whole intent is one of humiliation, and once someone has been humiliated, they are, in the modern parlance, "owned" by the humiliator. Thus, in order for you words to function, they must have bite. And, increasingly, they no longer do. Such is life in the modern world- such is your shrill (along with the other 15% of humanity who wish to be tools) accusation- it has no meaning to me.

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Rex - according to the graph, the rate began dropping in '34, about a year after prohibition ended and kept going down until after WWII. The effect of ending prohibition was not immediate since some states stayed dry a while but it is obvious. Black market wars take time to dissipate so there were still plenty of violent gangs around to cause trouble, but a major source of revenue dried up and the gangs lost strength. The Depression didn't have much of anything to do with the homicide rate, the drug war drove the rate up and it came back down to around 5-6 homicides per 100,000 which looks like where it is most of the time we aren't waging a drug war. You cant point to a Depression to explain the repititious nature of the graph.

Actually, I do not disagree with you here. My point was that if poverty were the sole reason for crime, then it should have been enormous during the depression because of that poverty- and it was not. The spike began long before the depression, as you note, so we are in agreement.

That graph puts into perspective recent claims about crime dropping. Mueller of the FBI recently acknowledged that drug arrests and convictions have dropped because resources are being diverted to terrorism. Too bad these numbskulls were wasting those resources chasing pot smokers before 9/11.

If I read you right, then we are in agreement. I believe things should go back to the way they were 100 years ago- i.e., when you could go into a drug store and buy whatever you wished- without prescription. I would also agree that they are simply not arresting as many people for many reasons these days- not just the so called "war on terror".

But you're right about improvements in health care, medics, etc, reducing the homicide rate. Back then more people died, today we can save many from death so the homicide rate during this drug war would be even higher if not for better medical responses to gunshot victims.

Drug wars roughly double homicide rates, but you wont hear the William Bennetts of the country admit that. They're too busy protecting me from the sin of drug use.

I won't even go there, I believe that the actual rates are incredibly high, but that like many unpleasant things these days, they simply don't tell us. "Ignorance is bliss" and all that. For an instance, notice how many times you read "police do not suspect gang........" in articles pertaining to crime period. I believe most of it is gang related.

[Epublius Rex]

CHe-

just do a google on "Marxism" and "racism" and perhaps "history" and you will see that everything you have been taught on the topic began and is at the heart of the agenda of the comintern. What they don't like to admit, is that in their paradise, the "worker's republic of the soviet union" everyone's ID card indicated their racial and ethnic origin. And, not unsurprisingly, they doled out the jobs accordingly. You can't have one world government with people clinging to that pesky little thing known as "culture", now can you? Culture is byproduct of ethnicity and nationality. Or did you think those cute little things only existed in Disneyworld? Note that France and Holland rejected the EU constitution because they are having second thoughts on losing that culture and ethnicity. And watch at just how shrill the debate now becomes in Europe over Turkey. The war isn't over yet- in fact, it is just getting under way. Enjoy the spectacle.